Please correct my understanding of a feudal army

[Tonguez]

Still for others, a High Fantasy approach has magic so copious that Feudal arrangements are unlikely to exist except as a veneer in some areas to allow for the trappings of Middle Ages Europe to be imitated. In the case of the latter it is best to just decide how you want things to look and then rationalize the trimmings retroactively.

Actually the existance of a few high powered individuals (ie PCs) and the abundance of aggressive threats to safety (ie Monsters) would tend to make Feudalism more likely. Moreover the High Level character has the means to enforce the service and tribute demanded from vassals. You might tend to get a flat hierarchy more along the lines of the 'competing warlords' of early dark ages Feudalism but the ability of an individual to rise up as 'King' due to both level and charismatic maneuvering isn't out of the question

 

[Mark CMG]

Actually the existance of a few high powered individuals (ie PCs) and the abundance of aggressive threats to safety (ie Monsters) would tend to make Feudalism more likely. Moreover the High Level character has the means to enforce the service and tribute demanded from vassals. You might tend to get a flat hierarchy more along the lines of the 'competing warlords' of early dark ages Feudalism but the ability of an individual to rise up as 'King' due to both level and charismatic maneuvering isn't out of the question

Maybe. The point still being that it is meant as veneer and the details of how it works are far less important than in other settings, since in high fantasy the epic story is the focus and everthing else should serve it. In such a setting/campaign the DM should simply do whatever serves the story and retionalize the results only as necessary.

 

[Hairfoot]

Very few other cultures were quite as good at killing things with a bow as the Welsh. There's just something terrifying about a 120lb yew wood self bow.

There's something terrifying about an armed Welshman. The bow is just garnish.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

There's something terrifying about an armed Welshman. The bow is just garnish.

The Anglo-Saxons conquered Wales last (when it came to defeating the Roman Celts). That's not entirely coincidence.

 

[Tonguez]

There's something terrifying about an armed Welshman. The bow is just garnish.

Its the shower of phlegm from his lyrical battle cry

 

[NewJeffCT]

It might be worthwhile for you to take a look over how the word is defined and determine if you can add some qualifiers as a way to narrow down your options (and allow you to more easily describe things to your players). I think for a lot of people their setting flavor follows the High Middle Ages (European) with magic added on and real world religions replaced by whatever pantheon the setting dictates (and, perhaps, some addtional pagan religions on the fringes of society). For others, a Late Middle Ages, or even early Renaissance, (European) society is used and it is assumed that magic is prolific enough to make things much more progressive and pseudo-technological. Still for others, a High Fantasy approach has magic so copious that Feudal arrangements are unlikely to exist except as a veneer in some areas to allow for the trappings of Middle Ages Europe to be imitated. In the case of the latter it is best to just decide how you want things to look and then rationalize the trimmings retroactively.

Thanks - I know it's a very wide range of years (say around 1066 through around 1453) - and a lot of changes took place in Europe, northern Africa & the Middle East. I think the mounted knight was just starting his era of dominance in the second half of the 11th century, while I think by those 1400s, gunpowder weapons were starting to be rolled out onto European battlefields...

And, I prefer not to retroactively justify things. I guess I'm kind of anal about these things, but if a horde of goblins were to over-run some lands in a remote corner of the kingdom, I would like a realistic idea of how many goblins it would take to over-run and overwhelm the lands of Baron Boris and Count Carlos. "I can't believe their lands were lost so quickly, each had 200 good men at their disposal! Something foul must be afoot!"

 

[Mark CMG]

You'll find some good information here -

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html

 

[Delta]

One thing I'll add on is that before truly strong nation-states existed, it was common to have feudal obligations to multiple lords (i.e., not just a single national hierarchy; consider it like having multiple creditors). I believe there were landholders in Lombardy who owed the English king M men per year, and the French king N men per year. There's at least one example of a lord actually personally fighting opposite his own feudal soldiers to satisfy cross-cutting obligations.

I'll also point out (re: two posts up) that heavy cavalry seem to be the dominant force in Europe from ca. 500 to 1500 A.D., as I read CWC Oman's "Art of War in the Middle Ages". Obviously the specific technology of armor & equipment of what constituted heavy cavalry changed over that time, from mail to heavy plate at the end.

 

[pawsplay]

If you happen to be a defender in the battle, you also get the levy... one man from each household who can serve one season and cannot be forced to cross borders. He gets leather armor, a helm, and a spear. The principal job of the levy is to stand in front at the beginning of the battle, then rout at the first sign of cavalry. Knights enjoyed running them down and slaughtering them for sport, a relatively safe diversion from fighting other knights or trained soldiers.

 

[Arrgh! Mark!]

What people have said here is quite valid, so I won't repeat the fact.

Due to the nature of the system, though, there is the problem of having elite forces without a great deal of unit-training in this era.

Understand; a Knight trained from age 7 to age 21 in his primary occupation; killing people. His weapons and armour were designed to keep this up for some time. Giving the fact that some knights may have had shoddy training or what not, even still you have a highly elite force. The problem is that each of these knights has his own agenda. The knights valorise single combat.

Example: Agincourt. Less than half of the mounted knights even bothered to show up to the battle because there was bugger all ransom in the English army anyway, leaving the unmounted knights to get slaughtered in hand-to-hand combat.

Freemen, mercenaries, and other professionals: these men are skilled and elite forces, as the 13th century Condottieri and so on. These men are unlikely to break under basic attack and often adopted decent tactics before the knightly classes. They are however underused and as a class of people there aren't a great deal of them anyway. Their use in battle isn't that great because few people understand how to use them untill the renaissance. These men may train from three to seven times a week.


Footmen, archers, and the like are peasant conscripts. They are trained fighters, and likely train every sunday in those skills. They are not however within the social framework of the knightly caste, which valourises combat and so on to the extent the knights train for as long as they do. The peasant armies have low morale, dislike being away from home, and don't have the ability to gain money or prestige from warfare like the middle classes or the upper classes can.

Example: The first crusade. The crusaders charged at the gates of byzantium, outnumbering the (elite) byzantine forces. Alexius orders his bowmen to fire warning shots. Two crusading peasants are killed; the entire army routs.



In this situation, military tactics are very basic. Your forces are fractious, morale is low, and to boot you are most likely starving (You try to feed 10 000 men and the follwers with whatever you can scavenge!). You hope to get things over quickly; the knights and so on charge with their peasants in tow. The army to break first is slaughtered.

Advanced tactics simply are not possible unless you can somehow instill some discipline into your troops. You can only charge, flank, ambush and basically hope for the best. The moment your peasants break you are finished.

Medieval battles were desperate, hungry affairs basically. So when thinking about how many men a king may have, think about how the wars themselves are conducted.